DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-20, 24, 28-31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘237 (WO2008104237) in view of Grayson et al. (US2020/0124193).
For claim 1, ‘237 discloses a plurality of elements (fig. 4, 4, 8) of which each element is for use as part of a fire-resistant sealing system for sealing off a conduit (1) by making with the elements a support structure in the conduit, wherein each element is of an elastic material that comprises predominantly fire-resistant rubber (page 3 of submitted translation, “summary of the invention”, silicon rubber), and wherein at least one of the elements exhibits at room temperature a color (Page 8 line 4) and transitions to a white color as the at least one element is heated (silicon rubber turns to silicon dioxide which is a soft white substance when burnt).
‘237 does not disclose that the color is a pastel green color that has a calming physiological effect on humans and/or a calming psychological effect on humans.
Grayson et al. discloses the obviousness of painting a sealing element pastel green to provide light absorption properties to the element [0050].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to paint the sealing element of ‘237 pastel green as made obvious by Grayson et al. to increase the light absorption of the element, reduce glare and enhance the aesthetic appeal of the conduit.
For claim 5, the combination discloses that at least one of the elements is a longitudinal element (‘237 fig. 3, 4).
For claim 6, the combination discloses that each element is free of a flange (‘237 fig. 3, 4).
For claim 7, the combination discloses that each element is a tubular element having a hollow core (‘237 fig. 3, 4).
For claim 8, the combination discloses that each element is cylindrical (‘237 fig. 3, 4).
For claims 9-11, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the element from an extrudate, by injection molding or by compression molding since these are well known manufacturing process for tubular elements. Moreover, these processes are considered product by process limitations (see MPEP 2113).
For claims 12-14, it would be obvious to make each tubular element have an inner diameter in a range of 8-40mm, an outer diameter in a range of 16-50mm and a mantle wall having a thickness in a range of 3-7mm (‘237 submitted translation page 6 paragraph 5).
For claim 15, the combination discloses that the rubber has a hardness in a range of 70-79 Shore A (‘237 submitted translation page 6 paragraph 5).
For claim 16, the combination discloses the obviousness of making each element of comprise a foam (‘237 fig. 7, 9, submitted translation page 8 paragraph 2).
For claim 17, it would be obvious to make the foam comprise cells of which more than 60% are closed cells since closed cell foam is well known in the art to increase the strength and waterproofing abilities of the element.
For claims 18-19, the combination discloses that the rubber is a silicon rubber and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to make the rubber ceramifiable rubber since the rubber material has already been disclosed and picking a specific type of rubber is obvious to one having ordinary skill to increase the insulation abilities of the rubber.
For claim 20, the combination discloses a plurality of elements according to claim 1 further comprising a fire-resistant sealant (‘237 fig. 4, 5) for use as part of a fire-resistant sealing system for sealing off the conduit, wherein the sealant is configurable to be provided against the support structure, wherein the sealant vulcanizes into rubber that exhibits at room temperature (page 3, “Summary of the invention”), and before and after vulcanization, a pastel green color as made obvious by Grayson et al. [0050] which has a calming physiological effect on humans and/or a calming psychological effect on humans.
For claim 24, the combination discloses that the sealant comprises after vulcanization silicone rubber (‘237 page 7 lines 6-8).
For claim 28, the combination discloses that a number of the elements can together form one tubular element having a hollow core (‘237 fig. 6, 5).
For claims 29-31, it would be obvious to make each tubular element have an inner diameter in a range of 10-32mm, an outer diameter in a range of 20-40mm and a mantle wall having a thickness in a range of 4-6mm (‘237 submitted translation page 6 paragraph 5).
For claim 33, the combination discloses that the rubber has a hardness in a range of 72-77 Shore A (‘237 submitted translation page 6 paragraph 5).
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633